What's hiding inside your tuna tin?

You know that colourful tin of tuna you drop into your supermarket basket every week? Ever wonder what’s in it? Probably not; in a matter of decades, tuna has gone from being exotic mystery to an almost generic foodstuff, as ubiquitous as bread and milk – there’s even one brand of canned tuna called “chicken of the sea”. No disrespect to chickens, but the many species of formidable, predatory tuna that charge around our oceans in large schools are in a different league altogether.

But back to the tinned variety; Greenpeace recently commissioned the first ever independent, public genetic tests into tinned tuna, to find out what was really going on inside 50 brands of tinned tuna. Analysis of products from 12 countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, and several European countries, turned up some pretty dodgy things inside some of them.

Inside some tins (brands Calvo, Campos in Spain), two different species of tuna were found, which is illegal in several jurisdictions, including in the EU, while in others (for example Clover Leaf in Canada and Nostromo [owned by Calvo] in Italy), tins from different batches were found to have different species inside separate tins.

While this apparently sloppy behaviour should set alarm bells ringing from a consumer point of view, there’s actually even more to be concerned about; the tinned tuna industry, through what appears to be lazy disregard for both its customers and future tuna availability, is forcing consumers and retailers into involvement in a trail of destruction.

It starts with a fad. That’s FAD, or a fish aggregation device– an elaborate name for an object placed in the water, which attracts lots of fish. FADs allow the fishing industry to catch a lot of tuna at the same time, but since different species are all attracted, including young fish it also causes a lot of bycatch.

Turtles, sharks, and various species of tuna, including juveniles of species under pressure like yellowfin tuna or bigeye tuna are caught in the same nets. This is not only killing hundreds of thousands of sharks, which are either drowning in the nets or dying an agonizing death once they have had their fins cut off and are thrown back into the sea, but it is also killing turtles and non-target fish species.

Ocean destruction in tuna tins

After genetic tests of tuna in tins, Greenpeace has found that many contain evidence of bycatch and unsustainable fishing practices. The use of fish aggregating devices (FADs)is one of the main reasons for this.

Now, we’re not saying there’s turtle or shark in your tuna tin, at least not literally. But when the juvenile tuna are sent ashore for processing and frozen, identification and sorting is apparently very difficult, resulting in species being mixed in the tinning process. We say apparently, as it may just be a case of it being financially uninteresting for the tuna industry to separate the species.

Whatever the reason, the problem keeps coming back to FADs. By using these fish-attractors in tandem with purse seine nets, the tuna industry is destroying its own future and pushing towards the collapse of tuna stocks. By catching small, young fish, it’s ensuring that there will be fewer large tuna in the future. That’s bad news for your tuna salad, bad news for the fishing industry, and dismal news for the “chicken of the sea”.

Greenpeace is calling for a ban on FADs in purse seining – we want them banned for using tuna fishing throughout our oceans. Fishing with seine nets only would help minimise the bycatch of other animals, as well as drastically reduce the amount of juvenile tuna ending up in tins.

To help support such a ban we need to take action in the supermarket. Consumers don’t want dodgy tuna, and neither do retailers. Every industry fears the wrath of consumer opinion; and we can use this to persuade the tuna industry to clean up its act, and to stop forcing dodgy tuna down our throats.

Note from AZTI-Tecnalia, who performed the tests for Greenpeace: Analytical results performed by AZTI-Tecnalia under its patented method for discrimination of Thunuus obesus and Thunnus albacares. AZTI has not participated on the sample collection and the design of the experiment and is not responsible for the use of the results delivered, or any information derived from its analysis and interpretation.

It would be good to label a certified "green" fishing industry product as it is donewith fair trade product.
It would give the onsumer...

It would be good to label a certified "green" fishing industry product as it is donewith fair trade product.
It would give the onsumer the choice to choose the right product.
Greenpeace may just be the right oranization to do that and at the same time generate more resources from the joining companies.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Pepijn
says:

@Laurent: That's what the MSC tries to do (#1). It certainly seems to work (from a consumer / market point of view) as large suppliers and supermarkets jumped on the bandwagon.

With the MSC it's important to realize that they only look at the fisheries (stocks, sustainable in the long run etc) in itself: the assessment scheme does not take in account that it (hypothetically) takes 50 litres of petrol to get one kilo of fish in your oven... Think of it like (bio-)organic products that are not necessary eco-friendly, and can often be worse for the environment than their non-organic counterparts.

Going beyond what MSC tries to do might have negative results. Fair Trade already seems hard (and often expensive) to manage and assess properly. With products like canned and processed fish it's even harder. Pushing for this might actually mean that small players in the fishing industry loose out (even more) to the big ones: it's simply bloody expensive to get something (anything) "accredited", and in the end you still do the same thing you did before... but now with a good feeling for the consumer. While I'm not saying that small-scale fisheries are definitely better than fisheries 'owned' & operated by large multinationals (500 mini-boats with sails can potentially do as much damage as industrial trawlers), this can lead to some big social injustice for the humans involved. Do we actually want that?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Brucef
says:

I find this report totally bewildering and wonder if anyone else does as well. For example; why would I, as a consumer care all that much ( or at all ...

I find this report totally bewildering and wonder if anyone else does as well. For example; why would I, as a consumer care all that much ( or at all ) if the can of tuna I just purchased contained more than one species of tuna? The tin states that it contains 'tuna' and indeed it does so what is your point GP?

I was fully expecting to read about the mercury, PCB, etc. that is found in Tuna as well as other 'top predators' yet there was not even a mention of these dangerous compounds!? I also thought that there would be a mention concerning the large numbers of Dolphins which are killed by the Tuna industry but again not the slightest mention of this.

Furthermore, the article speaks of 'dodgy' things found inside cans of Tuna yet does not mention what these things are. Just because there may be more than one species of Tuna in the can this hardly makes the product 'dodgy'. I just don't get it. Would someone please explain why GP is focusing on something as irrelevant as multiple species of Tuna in a can yet ignores these far more important issues?

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Emilyisme
says:

A few points;

Firstly, the MSC do not only consider fish stocks. They have 3 main principes which fisheries may be certified against 1) f...

A few points;

Firstly, the MSC do not only consider fish stocks. They have 3 main principes which fisheries may be certified against 1) fish stocks, 2) environmental impact and 3) management. They also have a further 27 criteria. They have received a lot of criticism about the scheme not being fully sustainable, and I for one agree. Fisheries can be granted MSC certification if fish stocks are below healthy, as long as they aim to improve them. Fisheries can also escape their annual assessment for a small fee. In regards to Tuna, the MSC has just 4 tuna fisheries certified (5 if you separate North &amp; South American Albacore Fishing Association), and as Albacore is listed as 'data deficient' by the IUCN then surely it is unwise to commerically fish. It is incredibly difficult to assess fish stocks, and the oceans naturally habit is to fluctuate, so extracting large amounts of fish very close to biological limits it a dangerous activity.

How can we go beyond MSC certification? It is already too expensive for small fisheries to obtain. It costs ~&#163;10,000 to become certified, and annual fees may range from &#163;5000 - &#163;75,000(possibly dollars, not pounds).
Ethically traded fish? That is almost impossible due to the nature of fishing ports and global trade.

Dolphin friendly tuna creates about 52X the amount of bycatch as dolphin 'deadly' tuna, so this is an unjust example of speciesism. Dolphin 'friendly' has huge quantities of endangered sharks, turtles, baracuda, rays etc., etc.

The species of Tuna is highly important due to the dwindling stocks of many species. Although you may not care, you should. Bluefin and bigeye are highly threatened and should not be extracted from our oceans due to a desire for protein. Personally, I see no benefits in eating tinned Tuna as it looses its omega-3 acids and is therefore no better than eating a white fish, say cod. The FSA recommend eating Tuna as fresh, as it retains goodness, and from an Environmental perspective, you know what species it is.

The problem of PCB and mercury poisoning is only an issue with consumption - if you are concerned, do not eat it. It takes huge amounts of these chemicals to cause toxicity, yet effects may be passed down from mother to child during pregnancy and accumulate up the food chain. As humans are at the top, the highest dosage would be passed onto us. Look up the Minimata Bay disaster for more info on mercury poisoning...

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Sime Validzic
says:

Why has nobody stated the obvious? All animal killing industries and commercial fishing are unsustainable and very cruel. The MSC (for fish) is just a...

Why has nobody stated the obvious? All animal killing industries and commercial fishing are unsustainable and very cruel. The MSC (for fish) is just as unreliable as is the FSC (for timber) and the RSPO (for palm oil).

It is unacceptable that governments subsidize commercial fishing. I have written to the Croatian Government and some institutions of the EU regarding this matter.

I am vegan since 1994 and encourage others to reject all animal products. It takes much less land to produce vegan food than food of animal origin to provide for the same number of people. That frees up the oceans and much land area for other species. All species have an intrinsuc value and the right to survive. Humans already exploit about 83% of the land and sea for their own needs and wants; all the other species share the remaining 17%. Go vegan!

It is also necessary for all the large ecological organizations to be more open to advocating population control. Governments should stop financial incentives for people to have more than 2 children.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

Juliette
says:

@Brucef The fact that we found different species in the tuna cans is a hint that unsustainable fishing methods were used to catch this fish. Capturing...

@Brucef The fact that we found different species in the tuna cans is a hint that unsustainable fishing methods were used to catch this fish. Capturing different species is a mark of the use of FADs, as they attract all fish. This means that the fishermen could be capturing juvenile fish (that hasn't yet had time to reproduce, thereby hindering the chances of the stock to be stable or grow), or some species that are known to be in decline currently.
This method of fishing also causes sharks and turtles to be among the by-catch, though they are commonly thrown overboard after they've been caught.

Post a comment

OPTIONAL: Register to avoid filling out forms each time you post a comment
Sign Up Here
login via Facebook or Google

(Unregistered) vyf5ter
says:

@JulietteH, sometimes you have to paint with a big brush and in broad strokes for people to understand.

@Brucef, I hope that you have re...

@JulietteH, sometimes you have to paint with a big brush and in broad strokes for people to understand.

@Brucef, I hope that you have read the response above from JulietteH, the key things to pick up on are the words JUVENILE, UNSUSTAINABLE. We cannot continue with wreckless abandon. The fact that there is bycatch caught in the nets along with the tuna does not mean that it all finds it way into your tin of tuna. It is however wasted by either dying in the nets or by being mutilated and thrown back overboard into the sea. This type of action is irresponsible and industries should be held to task.